rec.autos.simulators

and yet, the very member that Dan Murray is responding to
was instabanned.

What was impolite in this post that Dan is responding to?

"Seems a lot of warnings and bannings going on lately.
There's are some long threads about this on the newsgroup
rec.autos.simulation. I wouldn't say too much though, as it
appears anyone complaining the warnings gets you banned.
Maybe that's what happened to Philippe.

I know better than to use my real name on any forum, and
they can warn Abbakus all they want, it won't bother me."

If you still have my PM's, maybe Dan can read them, and email me
to explain which of them were impolite. Just reply to this group
or to me, as I don't use a fake email address or name here.

Errr, you've had one yellow warning??  What about all the other warning PMs,
yellow and red warnings you've had in the past???

BS, you never asked to hold off on the warning.  All you did was protest it
by claiming it was in the public domain because someone in some other group
said it was.  You also made the brilliant assumption that because it hasn't
been removed from a specific website that it was OK.  I guess this means
that warez sites are OK too??

Are you also forgetting the fact that in your defense you sent me a link to
another webiste that hosted the video?  This website had the disclaimer
saying the videos were for educational use only, had to be deleted within 24
hours and begged the copyright holders to let them host the videos.  That
was really smart.....

And what exactly are you doing on these forums by spreading lies and false
accusations about those that help RSC to run smoothly??

LOL, do you really think that anyone who's polite can get out of a warning
just by being nice?  Again, when you tried to show the validity of the
video, you posted a link that stated the opposite.  Why remove a warning
when you provide evidence indicating that you're guilty?

What a warped sense of reality.  How on earth do you think that I send a
response from Dan to anyone?

What this really shows is your lack of reading the quoted text thorougly
before responding.  How can you possibly think that a mod or smod could get
in trouble by simply receiving a PM from someone?

Nah, it only makes it look like you're trying to make an argument against
something doesn't exist.

Are you really that dense?  I figured it out by reading the first 2
sentences in that post you refer to.....

Politeness has nothing to do with it....

The first 2 sentences are just stating facts, and aren't impolite.
What rule at RSC did those 2 sentences violate?
I think you just prove that member's point.

Perhaps you didn't read this statement by Dan Murray, or is his
statement a lie?

"Despite your claim, somebody querying about or even
protesting against a warning/ban in a polite manner
will not result in that somebody being warned or banned
themselves."

I was pointing out where a reason could be read for the banning of abbakus.
It's not my fault if you keep quoting and responding to yourself and then
get confused when someone else says something.

OK, please explain how a site that's hosting perfectly legal videos needs to
mention any sort of loophole?

And?  You apparently requested to have your account removed before I even
got that PM, which you already knew.

Why would anyone with some sort of common sense try to appeal a warning to
anyone other than a member of the staff??  Have you ever considered the fact
that staff may have some sort of guidelines as to what their duties are or
do you think everyone just runs around doing anything they feel like?

"will result in their punishment also" would mean that they'd be punished
and does NOT mean that they'll "suffer the same punishment".

fight, appeal, who cares??  How different is "appeal the verdict" from
"fight the verdict"?

One more thing, who said that everything someone types in a PM needs to be
an officially posted rule?

What does anything that happened in the past have to do with this incident?
I "served my time", lived with the previous warning icons, what more do you
want? Although it doesn't matter, exactly how many warnings do you think I
received in the past?

There were two previous incidents, the first one an honest mistake, the
second one undeserved.

Yellow warning escalated to red warning for posting a link to a video of
a compilation of short clips of Champ cars. I had posted the link
twice, which is why the yellow warning got escalated to a red warning.
There was no way for me to know that this clip was copyrighted.
I eventually found that it came from a dvd. However, 6 minutes out of
a 90 minute video sounds like "fair use" to me, and not a violation of
copyright, but I didn't protest this warning, and apologized for this.

Yellow warning for posting a link to the LFS mod "slicks for all cars"
simply because that mod was created by a banned member. This was
undeservered since there is no way to know that the author of that
mod was ever a member of RSC, or that the author was a banned member,
or that the name "phlos" referred to an individual or to a development
team.  However, I didn't protest this warning either.

http://www.phlos.com/forum/

No, I stated that it had been hosted on several web sites since 2002,
and without issue, indicating that the video was either public domain
or at least covered under "fair use".

Are you also forgetting that that web site didn't host the video and that
I responded to you that I agreed that that website was using a loophole
in USA law to host those videos, and referred you to this site instead,
which has been hosting the video in a side by side comparason with a
Caterham since Septermber 2002?

http://www.jackals-forge.com/lotus/

What lies, I've merely stated my observations based on fact. Note several others
have started RSC bashing threads here, and it was another member complaing about
RSC being unfair back in a thread posted at RSC back in 2002, but soon after
you posted a link to that thread RSC quickly removed it. It seems like RSC
feels it has something to hide.

My points:

RSC's public warning system is undocumented. RSC should at least document
it's public warning system policy in the new user agrement, the same as
every other forum site that includes a public warning system. An agreement
is like a contract, every new member has the right to know what they
may be subjected to by the moderators of RSC before agreeing to join
RSC. If a potential new member was properly informed of this rule, that
new member may choose not to join, or to use a false name instead of
a real name.

Better yet, eliminate the public warning system, as it's not needed.
No other racing game forum uses any public warning system at all,
if a member causes trouble, they handled it privately and/or ban
the member depending on the seriousness of the violation.

Of all the sites Sirrocco linked to that do have public warning system,
none of them issue a public warning for a first time minor offenes.
None of them attach public warnings to all posts, only the posts
that were in violation. The warnings are also for more serious issues,
like explaining how to implement viruses or denial of service attacks
on web building forums. RSC instead attaches warnings to all posts
made by a member even for first time minor violations.

Well, seeing as you asked, the count should be a bit higher than that.
Don't forget, warnings other than visible, under the avatar, public warnings
do count as a member being warned.

Really?  How does something being available on a website since 2002 make it
public domain or "fair use"?  It sure sounds like you're saying that someone
could set up a web server somewhere, load it full of software and let it sit
for 3 years.  Then, if it wasn't found and shut down within that time, it'd
suddenly be OK for everyone to download and use it solely because it was out
there for 3 years without issue.

You make it sound like everyone gets a yellow warning for a 1st time
offense.  If you only knew how wrong you are....

To be honest, it was Mbrio and not you that turned this molehill into
a mountain. It was Mbrio that demanded that I never post a link to any
video, even ones that I personally created, and later demanded that
I mail a written letter within 24 hours agreeing to the public warning
system policy, or be banned.

I also notice that Mbrio has never responded here, you're the only
RSC moderator willing to speak up for RSC. Other than you, it seems
that no other RSC moderator is willing to defend their actions in
a public forum such as RAS. I have to give you credit for this.

Also your treatment of me, regarding the yellow warning pales in
comparason to Mbrio's PM's to me, first asking to never post a link
to a video, and next demanding I mail a written letter within 24
hours agreeing to the undocumented rules.

Personally, I'd to see the public warning system at RSC done away
with completely, or to at least only attach a warning to the specific
violating post (just treat your members the same as any other forum
would).

Next I would like to see some documentation of the public warning
system, amended or not, included in the new member agreement. Anyone
entering into a contract or agreement deserves to know all the details.
Imagine buying a car and finding out later that you're automatically
being fined for every speeding violation, even though this is never
mentioned in the purchase contract.

I'm giving you permission to list them here. I only remember two
previous incidents (three if you count the champ car video as two
incidents). Yet Mbrio claims (falsely) that there were many.

What other warnings or PMs did I ever get while at RSC? I don't
remember any.

I stated that it was available on several popular (within the car racing
world) web sites. Regardless, did you honestly think that that video
was truly in violation of copyright law and not covered by fair use?
Considering it's just one lap of many practice or qualifying laps,
showed no racing footage whatsoever, and therefore is a small sample,
and not the "heart" of the entire footage of that race, then fair
use would apply here. Also note that I agreed to leave the link deleted,
I was just protesting the warning, as it was the second warning I
recieved that I felt was undeserved.

The first undeserved public warning was for posting a link to the LFS S1
slicks for all cars mod. How could anyone know that this was content
made by a banned member?

On a side note, after reviewing stats of F1 cars at Spa in 20002,
it was a qualifying lap or at least using a qualifying setup, assuming
the announcer was accurately stating top speed. For qualifying, top
speeds of 190mph are typical, while racing setups that have to use
less downforce in order to preserve tires end up around 205mph.

No, but only RSC attaches a public warning to every post made by
a member. The other sites only post a warning on the violating post
(I assume that the violating content is editted out). RSC's public
warning system is beyond reasonable, and purely punitive.

Also no other racing game forum uses any public warning system at all,
and yet they all manage to run smoothly.

Also I can only go by my personal experience. I can see my first
warning was justifiable (but not the public nature of it), since it
turned out to be video from a DVD, however, 6 minutes from a 90
minute video sounds like fair use to me. I think I posted a link
to that video twice, which was an hones mistake. I had no desire
to cause RSC any trouble by posting a link to an interseting video.

My second warning was totally uncalled for. As mentioned above,
it was for posting a link to the LFS S1 slicks for all cars mod.
How could anyone possibly know that that mod was authored by
a banned member?

My last warning, about the David Coulthard lap video, bothered
me more because of my experience with the S1 mod warning. Since
another member asked why I got a yellow warning, it also dawned
on my how unfair RSC's public warning system is, since that
thread was totally unrelated to the thread were I posted the
video. I hadn't previously noticed that RSC attaches a public
warning to every post in every thread made by a member. This
is totally uncalled for, unreasonable, and punitive, as I
also mentioned before.